dichotomies wrote:There is one experiment im looking forward to: the Holometer at Fermilab which is attempting to identify the "pixels" of reality over the next year or so. So some people are free thinking enough to be capable of taking it seriously.

I read a little about it and the concept is not that farfetched. They are trying to measure the "graininess" of time and space with the idea that if the universe is made of digital "pixels" the resolution must have some limit and so at some point they should be able to see one individual pixel.

Kranter wrote:I've got no idea what you people are talking about. But it sounds interesting.

The question is: What is our reality and could it be a "virtual" reality that has been created by some higher form of intelligence or by "God" with it's own set of rules that are more or less arbitrary, but fits together logically so it makes sense to us (accept at the quantum level).

Personally, I think the human perspective is just like looking through a pinhole and drawing conclusions from what we see. We have accepted our reality without question, reminds me of how we accept the dream reality, until we wake up of course. I think it's healthy for us to start questioning the nature of our reality, even if we don't understand it.

Have you ever had a dream, Neo, that you were so sure was real? What if you were unable to wake from that dream? How would you know the difference between the dream world and the real world? Morpheus

1. The “simulation” idea and the “solipsism” idea are completely independent. Employing a metaphor from pop culture, in the movie “The Matrix” the humans were unknowingly immersed in a simulation but it was not a solipsistic simulation.

2. IF we are in a simulation, it is not necessarily the case that this is undiscoverable. Various forms of consciousness exploration could possibly uncover this.

3. IF we are in a simulation AND this is “verifiable”, it may very well “matter” and change our perceptions and behavior.

4. Even if the simulation or lack thereof is NOT verifiable, contemplating the possibility may change our perceptions and behavior. More on this below in #9.

5. The simulation idea provides an interesting model for entity contact in altered states of consciousness. This model may suggest a formal research agenda.

6. Most, if not all, of the classic mystical teachings insist that the world is illusory and our perception and understanding of the world and ourselves is fundamentally flawed. The simulation model may provide new approaches to understanding this pointer.

7. Building on #6, consider, as an example, the Buddhist Eight Similes of Illusion (http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Eight_similes_of_illusion). These can be difficult to accept or take seriously. The simulation model may provide an example of an accessible “Ninth Simile”.

8. Ignoring completely the “truth” of the simulation model, the contemplation of the mere possibility may provide emotional relief. Personally, I have experienced this emotional comfort contemplating the simulation possibility (and ignoring issues of “actuality”) in times of emotional turmoil. I have no idea why this provides comfort.

9. Ignoring completely the “truth” of the simulation model, the contemplation of the mere possibility may provide expansive conceptual adventures. For example:a. Some “people” may be conscious and others may be non-conscious automata. Currently, proficient lucid dreamers are investigating similar issues in the world of mutual lucid dreaming.b. Some “people” may survive death and others not.c. Some “people” may reincarnate or even partially reincarnate depending on how memories in the simulation are “programmed” to persist past “death.”d. Etc. e. More generally, if you have any experience of computer programming or even the idea of computer programming, contemplating the possibility of the simulation model may provide an extreme “loosening” of one’s implicit or explicit prejudices with respect to “reality.” In particular, one may contemplate that different “people” have RADICALLY different “ultimate realities” and this may lead to a lack of argumentation. (Please note that I use “programming” as metaphor and am actually quite opposed to the standard A.I. view of “mind.”)

Ryan wrote:Might I inquire what about his OBE claims you are skeptical about?TMI has a number of his "OBEs" on audio recording for you to listen to.

The big problem I have with Campbell is his insistence on calling his OBE experiments "Scientific Research" while po-pooing independant peer review like it was some kind of club that he wasn't invited into. The fact is neither he, nor Monroe has ever reproduced their "Scientific Research" for anyone outside their group to my knowledge. He makes wild claims such as reading next week's headlines and reading information contained in sealed envelopes, yet can't demonstrate these abilities using the scientific method which requires repeatable experiments. He wants his research to be recognized as science, but refuses to play by its rules.

Personally, I believe anything is possible, no issue there. But don't make claims unless you can back them up with proof. People probably have OBE experiences, there is quite a bit of anecdotal evidence although it's not science, at least at this point.

Ryan wrote:As for "real"... It's my thoughts that anything you can "experience" is "real".

We both agree on that point for sure and probably Tom campbell too. To me, reality is subjective and experience is the "only" reality. You can deny anything, except what you experience.

I wholeheartedly agree with you there when it comes to Campbell!

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

Well i think lucid dreaming proves that we don't live in a simulation No im serious! lucid dreaming is our brain making its own stimuli that we precieve , thus proving that we are not living in a simulation because the simulation would have no way to allow the inhabitants to make there own stimuli .

It's a great theory, but it has a flaw. Computing power needed would increase exponentially. In the first simulation, It starts simulating all of nature. If I were writing the program for it, I would make the simulation very quick. As you got to the hi-tech part of that simulation, the computer doing the calculations would have to calculate every single computer in the simulation. Now that simulation starts their own simulation. If every simulation civilization makes their own AI civilization, than each simulation further down would be being processed at faster and faster speeds. If every AI civilization makes the simulation 10,000 times faster than their perceived time (So they can effectively watch evolution), and we were just the fifth down, our reality would be 10,000^5 (100,000,000,000,000,000,000) times faster than the original (Assuming that each civilization only creates 1 simulation). Doing that would have a very high potential for a crash. A crash would effectively wipe all the simulations into nothingness. Also, no computer can have ram or a processor added while its running. Turning it off would also effectively destroy the civilizations.

"I wandered home though the silent streets And fell into a fitful sleep Escape to realms beyond the night Dream can't you show me the light? "~2112

What if the first reality is in an alternate universe with different laws of phsyics that allow for bigger planets/resources, computers?

Anyway this is a question I have been wondering about. If the multiverse theory is true and there are different universes with different physical laws, this just beign one of them, would the laws of nature and logic be the same in all of them? In other words, would there be different shapes in geometry that we cant possibly imagine? That the shortest distance between A and B in one universe might not be a straight line?

"There is theoretical abstraction, and then there is true abstraction."

even simpler than that and more head twisting for me is to imagine a place with no shapes and no distance, a place where these concepts just dont exist. How do you start to imagine this sort of concept?

Who are you I asked, the reply "dont be silly, we are your daughers" many years before they were born

Ah I love when I get into that zone, it usually lasts only a few seconds, and I probably dont get there fully. I start off imagining the earth from space, then imagine what if there were no stars just space. Then I imagine what if there was no space, nothing for me to look at, no place for me to think, basically no existance. It makes me wonder why anything exists at all.

Furthermore I like to wonder if there are other concepts or things out there other than existence, it is actually one of my weird faith/beliefs that life and existence itself is just a spec of the grand scheme, the grand scheme being infinite potential.

As for no concepts, I like to imagine the big bang right at the start. Imagine looking at space expanding extremely slowly, in slow motion, emerging from the singularity. Everything around the border of space as it expands is nothing, it isnt space. Its just non existance, nothing, yet somehow the universe just grew out of it. Its quite strange when you start thinking, WHERE is the universe.

Anyway I like to think that wherever "Nothing" is, a universe instantly expands out of it in order for something to imagine it.

"There is theoretical abstraction, and then there is true abstraction."